|
On November 08 2010 06:13 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2010 06:09 unindel wrote:On November 08 2010 06:07 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On November 08 2010 06:01 Numy wrote:On November 08 2010 06:00 I_Love_Bacon wrote:
Even the wording of their poll is wrong. The extended series rule is 100% fair... whether or not they want to use it is a different story. But there's certainly nothing more fair/unfair about it than without the extended series rule. How is it 100% fair? Please explain your reasoning. As I view it , it is very unfair for any player that does not face the same opponent in LB as in WB. I'm sure everyone would love to have extra chances. If we ignore all past results then that would mean for the sake of consistency you'd have to remove the winner bracket's champion having an advantage over the loser's bracket, no? If not, why draw the line there and not simply for beating an earlier opponent? Why does that logic apply there but not later? The difference there is that the player from the WB has never been eliminated from the tournament, whereas the LB has been eliminated once. In order to be taken out of a double elimination tournament, you should be eliminated twice. Then why play double elimination? Why not make it single elimination to remove all problems that stem from these arguments? Their system punishes losers. Lost to somebody earlier? Punishment, better step your game up. Find yourself in the losers bracket? Punishment, better step your game up. MLG likes to favor winners.
Cause double elimination without extended series in LB makes perfect sense.
PainUser lost 2-1 to Jinro in WB, he "lost" 2-1 in LB to Tyler. He's still in the tournament. This is what you're calling 100% fair.
|
On November 08 2010 06:12 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2010 06:07 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On November 08 2010 06:01 Numy wrote:On November 08 2010 06:00 I_Love_Bacon wrote:
Even the wording of their poll is wrong. The extended series rule is 100% fair... whether or not they want to use it is a different story. But there's certainly nothing more fair/unfair about it than without the extended series rule. How is it 100% fair? Please explain your reasoning. As I view it , it is very unfair for any player that does not face the same opponent in LB as in WB. I'm sure everyone would love to have extra chances. It's fair because it applies to everybody in the tournament as is easy to understand an enforce. Whether you think it should be applied is a different argument. Neither solution gives 100% happiness, but both are fair. Extended series: Avoids problems from a final series going 2-3 and the person with 2 wins advancing over the person with 3 wins. Non-Extended: Says fairness is derived from equality stemming from a reset of past results. If we ignore all past results then that would mean for the sake of consistency you'd have to remove the winner bracket's champion having an advantage over the loser's bracket, no? If not, why draw the line there and not simply for beating an earlier opponent? Why does that logic apply there but not later? I honestly don't have a horse in either race and don't have a large feeling. But both sides make sense, and the outcry about it blows my mind. Hell, at the first MLG there was even pages and pages of people crying that it was a double elimination tournament. People will complain about anything. Well the standard Double elim is quite simple to understand. You lose 2 bo3s are you are out. That's it. It's what has been used for years and well frankly makes the most sense. With an extended series it means that the one individual has to lose 3 bo3s where as an individual that does not get lucky enough to have an extended series can only lose 2. This to me sees less fair then the simple system of lose 2 and you are out. Regardless of your score with an individual I don't see how having to lose more games is really fair for competition. I don't see a need to change the double elim system that has been used for years and worked for years.
Once again, it depends on where you emphasize fairness. There is no solution to double elimination tournaments that are 100% fair. Without the extended series you can have a winning record against somebody and still be eliminated from the tournament by them. How is that fair?
Everybody can agree that round-robin style tournaments are the most fair, but they're also not practical to be done in a short timespan for a tournament. When you use double elimination (as I feel they should), there will be an element to complain about. My goal is that people shutup and stop complaining since in the format of double elimination there can not be a perfect solution. So, accept that this is MLG's choice.
|
|
|
On November 08 2010 06:16 humblegar wrote:
People are complaining because the rule is stupid, nothing wrong with that.
Giving some edge in the final to the winner of the WB is fine since he/she has not been eliminated once, but some tournaments in other sports do not even do that, since the LB is demanding in itself due to the amount of games you have to win.
But MLG for some odd reason have to add another rule that makes no sense at all, where two players with one elimination each suddenly are playing an extended series. As has been mentioned, PU would have been eliminated at 1-2 and may now win the tournament although he should have been eliminated twice.
There are also far more entertaining and fair formats, like round robin into single elimination.
You mean like World Cup? Noooo bc then they'll bring in the Vuvuzela!
|
On November 08 2010 06:14 Serpico wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2010 06:13 killerkoala wrote:On November 08 2010 06:10 Serpico wrote:On November 08 2010 06:09 Firereaver wrote:On November 08 2010 06:04 Ryzu wrote:
Thread spiraling into mass whining. Another quality LR thread. Its inevitable. Immaturity abounds without mod interference.. You're joking right? You think mods should stop a perfectly valid discussion? Good lord, stop asking to have your hand held. This not a LIVE DEBATE thread. It is LIVE REPORT. Wait what? You dont think people debate strategy or whether a player should have done A, B or C? Get real. It's related to the tourney and the games being played.
You don't deserve a reply as you ob don't get the differece between a discussion and an all-out whiney qq lasting more than 40-50 pages...
|
On November 08 2010 06:15 SikLyric wrote:
anyone else think it's ridiculous toss can 4 or 3gate rush and contain with FF while expanding?
P can do that if T doesn't respond properly, Pain.User just wants to do it differently I guess, I don't know. T 3rax nullifies 4gate rushes.
|
On November 08 2010 06:10 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2010 06:08 Serpico wrote:On November 08 2010 06:07 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On November 08 2010 06:01 Numy wrote:On November 08 2010 06:00 I_Love_Bacon wrote:
Even the wording of their poll is wrong. The extended series rule is 100% fair... whether or not they want to use it is a different story. But there's certainly nothing more fair/unfair about it than without the extended series rule. How is it 100% fair? Please explain your reasoning. As I view it , it is very unfair for any player that does not face the same opponent in LB as in WB. I'm sure everyone would love to have extra chances. It's fair because it applies to everybody in the tournament as is easy to understand an enforce. Whether you think it should be applied is a different argument. Neither solution gives 100% happiness, but both are fair. Extended series: Avoids problems from a final series going 2-3 and the person with 2 wins advancing over the person with 3 wins. Non-Extended: Says fairness is derived from equality stemming from a reset of past results. If we ignore all past results then that would mean for the sake of consistency you'd have to remove the winner bracket's champion having an advantage over the loser's bracket, no? If not, why draw the line there and not simply for beating an earlier opponent? Why does that logic apply there but not later? I honestly don't have a horse in either race and don't have a large feeling. But both sides make sense, and the outcry about it blows my mind. Hell, at the first MLG there was even pages and pages of people crying that it was a double elimination tournament. People will complain about anything. No...that doesnt make anything fair. It simply makes it applied for everyone so anyone can get screwed. My mind, it boggles. The definition of fair is "the same standards apply to everyone". If you don't like the system they use (I certainly don't), please say that, instead of making disingenuous comments about fairness.
Lol, that's not the definition of fair ... this rule ensures that some people get unlucky while others get lucky. That anyone can get screwed over doesn't make it fair, how don't you understand that?
The punishment for going to the losers' bracket is that you have have to play way more games and can be eliminated if you lose. It's ridiculous that if you face the person you got put in the LB by, that he gets 2 free wins over you for no good reason. Seriously, why would anyone get a 2-0 head start?
|
|
|
On November 08 2010 06:15 SikLyric wrote:
anyone else think it's ridiculous toss can 4 or 3gate rush and contain with FF while expanding?
No. Scout it and prepare with forward bunkers or whatever else you want.
|
On November 08 2010 06:12 Firereaver wrote:
Lovely defence against the 4gay! Gosh PRotoss in this torney.. Just lulz. 'Cept for Tyler, HuK, Socke and maybe KiwiKaki.
So he 4gated? So what?
You act like he's on of those POS players that only knows how to all-in or something.
|
On November 08 2010 06:15 SikLyric wrote:
anyone else think it's ridiculous toss can 4 or 3gate rush and contain with FF while expanding?
No, because Protoss can't.
Protoss has to stop building units to expand. This only works if Terran surrenders his ramp to Protoss's force-fields.
|
I don't like how lame tanks are in SC2. 
|
The PvT games were so horribly boring to watch.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, protoss push of doom, gg.
|
Wow that was an unreal amount of gateway units in that attack compared to what Painuser had, he must have had 20 stalkers.
|
double-elimination without extended series is 100% fair, just like group stages are 100% fair. You can have a losing record against an opponent and still win the tournament. Case in point: the WORLD CUP.
|
Oh no maybe they can say game doesnt count because its played on wrong map?
|
On November 08 2010 06:17 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2010 06:12 Numy wrote:On November 08 2010 06:07 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On November 08 2010 06:01 Numy wrote:On November 08 2010 06:00 I_Love_Bacon wrote:
Even the wording of their poll is wrong. The extended series rule is 100% fair... whether or not they want to use it is a different story. But there's certainly nothing more fair/unfair about it than without the extended series rule. How is it 100% fair? Please explain your reasoning. As I view it , it is very unfair for any player that does not face the same opponent in LB as in WB. I'm sure everyone would love to have extra chances. It's fair because it applies to everybody in the tournament as is easy to understand an enforce. Whether you think it should be applied is a different argument. Neither solution gives 100% happiness, but both are fair. Extended series: Avoids problems from a final series going 2-3 and the person with 2 wins advancing over the person with 3 wins. Non-Extended: Says fairness is derived from equality stemming from a reset of past results. If we ignore all past results then that would mean for the sake of consistency you'd have to remove the winner bracket's champion having an advantage over the loser's bracket, no? If not, why draw the line there and not simply for beating an earlier opponent? Why does that logic apply there but not later? I honestly don't have a horse in either race and don't have a large feeling. But both sides make sense, and the outcry about it blows my mind. Hell, at the first MLG there was even pages and pages of people crying that it was a double elimination tournament. People will complain about anything. Well the standard Double elim is quite simple to understand. You lose 2 bo3s are you are out. That's it. It's what has been used for years and well frankly makes the most sense. With an extended series it means that the one individual has to lose 3 bo3s where as an individual that does not get lucky enough to have an extended series can only lose 2. This to me sees less fair then the simple system of lose 2 and you are out. Regardless of your score with an individual I don't see how having to lose more games is really fair for competition. I don't see a need to change the double elim system that has been used for years and worked for years. Once again, it depends on where you emphasize fairness. There is no solution to double elimination tournaments that are 100% fair. Without the extended series you can have a winning record against somebody and still be eliminated from the tournament by them. How is that fair? Everybody can agree that round-robin style tournaments are the most fair, but they're also not practical to be done in a short timespan for a tournament. When you use double elimination (as I feel they should), there will be an element to complain about. My goal is that people shutup and stop complaining since in the format of double elimination there can not be a perfect solution. So, accept that this is MLG's choice.
Ok I agree with you there. Double elim has always been a strange format that really will never be fair. I just believe the standard is "more fair" but yes you are right it's time to move on. There is a thread up to debate this
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
